Interfere with legitimate parallel trade in goods, including the resale of brand-name pharmaceutical products.

Impose liability on manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients if those APIs are used to make counterfeits .

Improperly criminalize acts not done for commercial purpose and with no public health consequences [obvious target: free software–e_f];

Improperly divert public resources into enforcement of private rights.

Actually, there were 103 groups that signed the letter (the full list is found at the bottom of this post)and it is a very diverse group including: Doctor’s without Borders; Australian National University, Canberra; The Canadian Library Association, Ottawa; Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Cairo ; University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law; AIDS Access Foundation, Thailand; Christian Media Network, Korea. Note that there are other organizations which oppose the ACTA secret negotiations, but are not on this list, e.g. the Free Software Foundation, because they didn’t sign the letter. In any case, the letter is an interesting example of Protest 2.0, connecting such far flung groups for a common cause.

So, given the depth and breadth of the opposition, the Obama administration is at a crossroads: do they side with a very few corporations, like the ones that run the anti-freedom organization known as the RIAA, or does the administration side with their constituency, i.e., those that actually elected them in the first place?

I think we will see one of two things happen: the Obama administration will either decide that this is a fight they can’t win now, and release the requested information or they will try to shift the debate. Noting how many public health groups are on this list, and their high degree of moral connectivity, that task will probably take shape like this: paint those who oppose the secret ACTA negotiations as against public health. Of course that’s ridiculous, as the anti-food and drug counterfeiting sections, while having some bearing on public health, would be much better if they were subject to public scrutiny, including the scrutiny of many public health agencies, not just the pharmaceutical industry and the megafood corporations that have been allowed to have input into the ACTA thus far. But, if the Obama administration decides to fight this, they will have spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about the motives of those who oppose the secret ACTA negotiations, and there isn’t another obvious way to do this. The idea that the ACTA is somehow pro-jobs is so flimsy, I just hope they make that argument. Of course, after the USA fought many wars to maintain our freedoms, we should capitulate once a little FUD is spread, right, after all those lives weren’t really important, were they?

The anti-peer-to-peer and copyright and trademark provisions, of course, have no significant bearing on public health at all and those who care about public health need to speak out about how web 2.0 has lead to public health gains.

Full list of organizations signatory to the letter requesting access and public disclosure of the ACTA provisions: